I use Endomondo during the rides with my phone and upload to Strava afterwards.

That Edge 20 isn't a bad looking unit.

I don't feel the phone is accurate honestly. My riding partner and I both used our phones today (mine Android, his iPhone) and at the end of the ride his logged 1/4 mile longer than mine for the same time.  Also I'm certain there is more than 265ft of climbing at ASC so I'm sure the elevation is inaccurate.

Also without HR (ANT+) connectivity it doesn't know the difference between hiking up a hill and grinding up at 100% effort so you really don't get a good snapshot of fitness stats. 

I know that may not matter to many, but I'd at least like the numbers I get to be as accurate as the Garmin used to be.

Garmin edge 500 can be had pretty cheaply these days since the 510 and 520 are out.  You will also need speed and cadence sensors if you want accuracy

sager wrote on 08/23/15 at 11:05am:



+1.  It's hard to beat a Garmin if you want to accurately keep up with your rides.  You can get by without the cadence sensor if you don't care about that.  Garmins new speed sensor straps to the rear wheel hub with an elastic strap.  No magnets needed.

UncleThunder wrote on 08/22/15 at 9:53pm:


I started using Endomondo a while ago to track fitness and it works well with My Fitness Pal.  I just started to upload to Strava.  I briefly looked into using Strava while riding and it didn't seem to support my ANT+ devices and the interface didn't appear to have as much as Endomondo. 

I did all the ASCG Trails Saturday morning and Endomondo says I did 740 ft of climbing.  With any GPS device, the line of site is important.  If I have my phone in my pocket or my saddle bag, it is very inaccurate.  I use this phone caddy that mounts on top of my stem.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

The last few weeks I've been trying different apps on the phone.

Map My Ride and Strava both are limited to the phones rather inaccurate GPS it seems. Rode with someone yesterday who had an actual wheel sensor and it turns out I'm loosing about 3/4 of a mile of tracking across a 9 mile ride.   

Guess I'm on the hunt to officially replace my Garmin with a new Garmin or maybe the new TomTom Mutli-Sport.

Carl Fisher wrote on 09/08/15 at 11:36am:



Carl - Jeff here, Strava was pretty close to my wheel sensor @ ASCG compared to most places.  Ended up with like 20.8~ miles on the sensor and strava shows 19.1.

This is pretty good as I normally end up with 80% of my ride (I usually get like 11.9 miles for 15~ mile ride @ WWC, 9.2 for 11.6 @ Sherman, 24.6 for 30.5 @ Kerr-Scott, etc)... 

I do think I am going to pick the multisport up in a couple of weeks if you want to wait for feedback (Mainly because the price of it - $150 and how fast it links up to satellite compared to the garmin comparable model - check youtube... plus it comes with a bike mount in the box!).  One of the guys I ride with has a Garmin watch mounted on his and its more accurate (he gets like 11.2 for sherman).  That's pretty accurate; the short coming of the .4miles is probably due to the beacon interval cutting straight lines around curves.   

With that being said if you want true accuracy I would jump straight into a wheel sensor, whether it be the $50 tomtom / garmin wheel sensor attachment, or an $18 cateye like I have (I may end up buying the tomtom sensor if thats the route I go).


Jeff

Cateye Micro Wireless ftw

GPS and cell phone apps usually short your distance by ridiculous amounts because the turns and switchbacks are so tight. I use a Cateye with a wheel sensor to get accurate data. Slap that data into a Google Sheet and that's it.

rob1035 wrote on 09/13/15 at 12:58pm:



But doesn't a speed sensor turn it back in to a Cateye?  I'm obviously missing something here.....I mean that seriously not sarcastically.... What do these units hold as an advantage over a regular cycle computer?  Seems like they are way more expensive and still not practical for use in the woods....